Why did we wait so long for the bicycle? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#281

Post by oarabbus_ » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:12 AM UTC

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #29

>Yet it was a simple mechanical invention As a mechanical engineer, this statement baffled me. All manufactured technology exists in the context of the manufacturing capabilities available to the designer. The manufacturing tech had to be tremendously complicated before a decent bike could be made. Hollow steel tubes aren't simple. Ball bearings aren't simple. There is a reductionist viewpoint among "theory" people t…

It's not a simple mechanical invention at all, I agree with you, this is a silly/absurd statement.

I recall in my freshman physics classes asking my professor "why are all the modules using inclined planes and pulleys? wouldn't we be able to learn better if the problems involved something we're actually familiar with in everyday life like a bicycle?" (I attended the university with the most bicyclists in the world)

I only needed to see his reaction to realize that a bicycle is pretty damn complex.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#282

Post by double0jimb0 » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

I’m pretty sure this author is trolling the reader.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#283

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #225

GlenTheMachine wrote: post #55

One possibly overlooked factor: the nature of travel has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. Right up until World War 1, my ancestors literally had no reason to ever go more than ten miles from home, and even that was rare. The entire extended family lived within a two mile radius. This was because they were all farmers, and farmers didn't need to travel often. Furthermore, if you did travel, well, you alread…

This is not entirely correct. If you are a farmer you (or a someone working with you) still need to travel for numerous reasons, including to bring your products to market, to round up your animals, to buy equipment and supplies, etc. You say they had horses for those types of traveling, except they most likely didn’t. Only a successful farmer could afford a horse. And even if they had a horse, chances were it was bu…

You say they had horses for those types of traveling, except they most likely didn’t. Only a successful farmer...

We can't make a universal rule like this. Everyone has a particular mental image of how farming worked long ago, but circumstances varied. Horses can eat a wide variety of plants, including something that is growing wild right outside your door. The density of farmers probably had more to do with whether they could afford a horse than anything else had. In locations that hadn't been farmed relentlessly for centuries, there was spare pasture for a horse or two to feed themselves. For an example, just look at traditional herders. Those people are poor as dirt even today, yet they all have horses. Or look at swiddeners. They didn't move every year, but they moved often enough that not every square meter of land had been converted to intensive agriculture. Many of them, both today (when swiddening is rare) and millennia ago (much more common!) had all sorts of livestock including horses.

Many ancient farmers couldn't have owned horses because they didn't have a way to feed them. Many other ancient farmers did own horses and could feed them.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#284

Post by double0jimb0 » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:16 AM UTC

lovemenot wrote: post #253

JackFr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It seems pretty clear that the development of the bicycle would've been significantly hampered by the fact that balancing on two wheels was: > (a) unintuitive as an idea with no analogue in nature or previous innovations > (b) had a marked learning curve > (c) that learning curve was separate and independent for each design. This! It's completely non-obvious that balancing will work and there is no analog in nature…

Skating was a thing long before cycling was. With enough forward momentum one can go quite far balanced on one ice-skate.

Rotating wheels generate a self balancing moment that resists falling over... which has nothing to do with balancing on a thin blade.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#285

Post by tjmc » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:17 AM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #213

smileysteve wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expensive, flimsy bicycles are completely useless in a world with poor roads and deep wealth inequality. You make a last great point with this. Without paved roads, rubber, decent springs; all of the shortcomings are amplified. The gear drive works, but if you have a wood wheel, with a wood axle, w/ wood cogs, the tolerances to be both comfortable and effective on cobblestone or dirt would be troublesome.

> Without ... rubber, as a one-word piece of supporting evidence, let me just say - Boneshakers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#Boneshaker

Agreed. Vulcanized rubber tires appear to be the major missing component. Vulcanization wasn't discovered until 1839 [1] and the need to further improve ride comfort (from solid rubber tires) helped spur the creation of the pneumatic tire in 1888 [2].

[1] https://www.britannica.com/technology/vulcanization [2] https://www.britannica.com/technology/tire#ref117797

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#286

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

Excel_Wizard wrote: post #29

>Yet it was a simple mechanical invention As a mechanical engineer, this statement baffled me. All manufactured technology exists in the context of the manufacturing capabilities available to the designer. The manufacturing tech had to be tremendously complicated before a decent bike could be made. Hollow steel tubes aren't simple. Ball bearings aren't simple. There is a reductionist viewpoint among "theory" people t…

There is an economic component in this. The people who would really want a bicycle had neither time nor money to develop them nor money to afford one. People with time and money would immediately think that horses were more practical. And they wouldn't be wrong.

It wasn't until the mid 1800's that the people who would want a bicycle could afford one if such was available. You had a middle class with disposable income. And simple mechanical contraptions like bicycles were cheaper. Because steel got about 20 times cheaper from 1860 to 1890. And things like chain drives had become industrial commodity items.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#287

Post by Robotbeat » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

By the way, push bikes (i.e. the hobby horse) are very common among toddler and preschool age children in my circles. I don't see why a wooden version of this couldn't have been common much earlier than 1817. Wood is sufficient for its construction, although I do suppose a metal bearing would be superior.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#288

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #114

lucideer wrote: post #26

> (Some commenters have suggested that it was not obvious that a two-wheeled vehicle would balance, but I find this unconvincing given how many other things people have learned to balance on, from dugout canoes to horses themselves.) I'll be one of those commenters I guess.... What!?? Balancing in a canoe is in no way similar to a bicycle. I can jump in a canoe having never been in one, and it will balance itself. I…

> The horse, with its four (not two!) legs is an even more ridiculous comparison. The comparison is, as I understood it, the rider balancing on the horse itself. I've only ever done this myself with saddle and stirrups, so I don't know if this is significantly more difficult without those. I think you're being a little generous with the canoe. Boarding a canoe without a dock (that is, climbing in from the water) is t…

Horses can certainly be ridden without stirrups. In fact stirrups weren't invented for over 4000 years after the domestication of the horse. The Roman Empire had no stirrups. The hardest part of riding without stirrups is mounting. It requires some mixture of strength, coordination, and a cooperative animal to mount from the ground without stirrups. Once you're mounted, staying mounted is not much more challenge than staying mounted with stirrups.

Yeah in deep water you either have to have somebody on the other side holding that gunwale down, or you have to pull yourself up on one end. Nobody boards that way from the shore, though. You just have it sitting in the water where it will barely touch bottom if you put all your weight in. Then you get in, and it's sitting on the bottom, balanced. Then you push off with a paddle or stick. The whole process is much easier than using a dock.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#289

Post by tasty_freeze » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #148

ajuc wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be less efficient, but still workable. Even just wood on wood is sufficient. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvFpbh2fjE [1] I think people vastly underestimate what you can do with very simple "naive" technology. [1] Yeah it uses aluminium spacers on the chain, but you can do a bicycle without a chain.

> It would be less efficient, but still workable. Even just wood on wood is sufficient. Proof: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvFpbh2fjE Your "proof" is unconvincing. 1. The bike looks super wobbly and seems like it takes a lot of effort to just make it function properly. Yes, it is an example of a wooden bicycle, but it is not an example of a useful wooden bicycle. It seems like it probably has a pretty short wo…

3. The test ride was down a hill. It is hard to judge without being there, but that is probably a 5% grade or so (see 6:54 in the video)

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#290

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 1:39 AM UTC

double0jimb0 wrote: post #284

lovemenot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skating was a thing long before cycling was. With enough forward momentum one can go quite far balanced on one ice-skate.

Rotating wheels generate a self balancing moment that resists falling over... which has nothing to do with balancing on a thin blade.

For the purposes of this discussion, that's probably true. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some super-precise slow motion video of a skater gliding on one skate revealed small adjustments analogous to the steering motions of a cyclist.